How can someone who doesn't believe in evolution claim to not be a fundamentalist?

Question

I've seen it a few times here.

Proponents of "intelligent design" claiming that they're not fundamentalists, they just don't "believe" in evolution.

Aren't they familar with the history of the ID handbook, "People & Pandas"? Prior to 1987 it was the creationist handbook, change "creation" to "intelligent design" and "creator" to "designer", and they think it's a science book.

Fact is, it's still religion. And it's still a fundamentalist approach to it.

When are they going to realise the rest of the world doesn't "believe" in evolution, we know it to be fact, backed up by mountains of evidence.

And for the fundies who are going to ask "where's your evidence?", here's the link that I know you're to scared to go to.
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Fair Inq...... just go to the link will you. Read some of what's there and you might realise how silly you make yourself look.

Answer 1

Well that's quite simple really. Fundamentalists, by definition, believe in the fundamental (look at me, using the referent in the definition, bad skalite, bad!) truth of a scripture or text. They believe quite simply that any given text is literally true. Now, one needn't have any text-based belief to question evolution. They merely have a belief that it's wrong. This is possible because faith, which they'll claim, is a belief in something (or in this case against something) even in the absence of (or in this case despite of) evidence to the contrary. It's a hairline deliniation, but it is technically possible to say, "I don't believe any (religious) text is literally true, but I don't believe evolution is true either." This is more a position from ignorance, but it is still a possible position.

That said, I agree that most people who claim they are not fundamentalists but then say that their chosen text is true do not realize the true definition of fundamentalism.

Answer 2

I don't think anybody is understanding your excellent point.

Creationism and ID are direct products of religious fundamentalism. These are people who first decide upon a desired result (instantaneous creation) and *then* set out to find "scientific" arguments and "evidence" in support of that result. This is precisely why creationism and ID are anti-scientific ... they stem from fundamentally anti-scientific ways of thinking (result first, then reconstruct science to fit that result).

It is very difficult to imagine someone rejecting evolution, not also being a religious fundamentalist. Without fundamentalism, a person has no valid reason to reject a scientific theory that is accepted by well over 98% of the scientific community. Or to put it another way, that tiny 2% of the scientific population who does reject evolution, is pretty much exclusively made up of scientists who are also religious fundamentalists, and have let their religious beliefs dictate their scientific beliefs.

There is no such thing as an atheist creationist. (Although there are *lots* of religious people who also accept evolution.)

Answer 3

People's acceptance of evolution is similar to the acceptance of the earth revolving around the sun 500 years ago, except the evidence for evolution is even greater and we live in a more scientifically advanced era. Oh yeah, and we're also not being burned at the stake by fundamentalists for putting forth scientific truth. It's time to start living in this century so the human race can progress.

Answer 4

I've already been to that website and they STILL don't explain the lack of evidence for ancestors of animal phyla that first appeared in the Cambrian explosion, how life could have possibly originated from non-life, or why Darwin's evolutionary tree still bears no fruit of unambiguous missing links. If you examined your "mountain of evidence" as skeptically as you did religion, it would crumble to dust. The fact is that evolution was accepted even before the evidence was considered and then the evidence was interpreted to fit the theory, square peg into round hole and all.

"How can someone who doesn't believe in evolution claim to not be a fundamentalist?"
Easy. By not believing in evolution and by not being a fundamentalist. Anyone who can do both is a non-fundamentalist who doesn't believe in evolution.

Answer 5

it somewhat is purely it Karl P, creationism isn't a scientific concept. this is unquestionably one of those the "holding the ensuing" fallacy. Evolution is an thought and a certainty. the thought explains how the certainty happens, considering we already comprehend that it happens. this is the comparable for any scientific concept, from the thought of Gravity, to the thought of Electro-magnetism, and so on.

Answer 6

Please do not expect any form of logical arguments from creationists or IDists. They have no problems at all with definitions, they simply change them to fit whatever argument they put forward. Mere facts will never sway the minds of the deliberately ignorant.
I have just done a quick spell check which threw out IDists, the alternative it gave was IDIOTS which I think was most perceptive for a machine.

Answer 7

It shows how effective brainwashing can be.

Christians in the US and Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are practically the only people in the world who don't accept Evolution.

I'm surprised they haven't put their differences aside and formed a Conservative 'Think Tank'.

There's an Oxymoron for you.

Answer 8

If you want to believe that "evidence" it is up to you.
So you say that science has created the world? Are you sure? Where does everything come from? And do you have ...what ... evidence to prove the ungodly beginning? Big Bang? Were you there? Doesn't biology say that life can only come from pre-existent life?
Maybe you are an E.T.
Fact is, there's not a separation between creation and evolution, my opinion. I don't believe for a second that the universe is 6000 years old. I believe that the scriptures are written in paraboles and metaphores.

Answer 9

I find both science and religion boring. Or is that too deep for you to get your mind around? Don't presume to speak for me. . People that ignorant and presumptuous should be made to swallow hemlock.